hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
James Longstreet 388 2 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 252 0 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 248 0 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 176 6 Browse Search
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) 158 0 Browse Search
S. D. Lee 154 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 138 0 Browse Search
Generals Longstreet 114 0 Browse Search
Plank (Pennsylvania, United States) 106 0 Browse Search
John B. Hood 88 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 6. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 114 total hits in 28 results.

1 2 3
Gainesville (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 6.40
The artillery at Second Manassas--Rejoinder of General S. D. Lee to General Longstreet. In the November number of the Southern Historical Society Papers is the following letter of General Longstreet's, supplemented by one from Colonel J. B. Walton, claiming to be a reply to my article in the August number touching the artillery used at the battle of second Manassas: Gainesville, Georgia, September 6th, 1878. Southern Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia: In your issue of last month a paper appears from the pen of General S. D. Lee, claimed to be a reply to a part of my official report of the second battle of Manassas as published in an article on the Gettysburg campaign by myself. No part of my official report of second Manassas was published in any of my writings upon Gettysburg. In my last I gave an account of the leading features of second Manassas, as connected with my command and myself, but distinctly announced in that paper that my sole purpose was to illust
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 6.40
ysburg campaign by myself. No part of my official report of second Manassas was published in any of my writings upon Gettysburg. In my last I gave an account of the leading features of second Manassas, as connected with my command and myself, but careful perusal will show him. I state that in the June number of the Historical Papers, for the first time, I saw his Gettysburg article, and also an extract from his official report. The article itself treats only of his allusions to second Manast of the victory at second Manassas, to the detriment of General R. E. Lee, Jackson or any command on the field. The Gettysburg article and his official report are not the only two instances on record where he makes the claim of routing the Federanfantry only been included, the above is substantially correct, except as to the five minutes, which conflicts with his Gettysburg article and his official report also. Colonel Lee's battalion, however, from Longstreet's account, is supposed to ha
Richmond (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 6.40
The artillery at Second Manassas--Rejoinder of General S. D. Lee to General Longstreet. In the November number of the Southern Historical Society Papers is the following letter of General Longstreet's, supplemented by one from Colonel J. B. Walton, claiming to be a reply to my article in the August number touching the artillery used at the battle of second Manassas: Gainesville, Georgia, September 6th, 1878. Southern Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia: In your issue of last month a paper appears from the pen of General S. D. Lee, claimed to be a reply to a part of my official report of the second battle of Manassas as published in an article on the Gettysburg campaign by myself. No part of my official report of second Manassas was published in any of my writings upon Gettysburg. In my last I gave an account of the leading features of second Manassas, as connected with my command and myself, but distinctly announced in that paper that my sole purpose was to illust
Jackson (Mississippi, United States) (search for this): chapter 6.40
sprung to the charge as the Federal masses melted away. Here the claim is again made. Had Colonel Lee's artillery and Jackson's infantry only been included, the above is substantially correct, except as to the five minutes, which conflicts with hn, swept across an open field of fourteen hundred yards immediately to my left and front, under the concentrated fire of Jackson's infantry in their immediate front, posted behind a railroad embankment, and the rapid fire of my four batteries at clo retire. When they were driven back the two front lines at the embankment had to retrace their bloody steps, pursued by Jackson's infantry, and under the crushing fire of our artillery Longstreet's two batteries no doubt played on the reserves, butnt batteries routed them, and it should not pass into history as a fact. This Federal assault, too, was repulsed, and Jackson's infantry was pursuing and did follow the enemy into the woods before Longstreet's troops moved in their magnificent ad
Eubank (search for this): chapter 6.40
eneral S. D. Lee. I have to ask, therefore, that you give it a place in your Papers whenever it may be convenient. I am, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, James Longstreet. The above letter, including Colonel Walton's, does not at all meet the issue I raised in my article in the August number of the Historical Society Papers, but is a clear ignoring and evasion of that issue. The point raised in my article was that my eighteen (18) guns consisting of the batteries of Eubank, Jordan, Parker, Rhett, and a section of Grimes' battery under Lieutenant Cakum (to use the words of General R. E. Lee's official report), posted in a position a little in advance of Longstreet's left, together with General Jackson's infantry, had something to do with the repulse of the enemy on the 30th August, 1862, in their desperate and gallant assault on General Jackson's position. General Longstreet, with his letter, sends a letter from Colonel J. B. Walton, in which he (Colonel W.
James Longstreet (search for this): chapter 6.40
sault on General Jackson's position. General Longstreet, with his letter, sends a letter from Coenied, but, on the contrary, quoted from General Longstreet's official report to establish the fact and show that my eighteen guns were on Longstreet's left, between himself and Jackson, in a commandicial extract. It is the misfortune of General Longstreet, if in trying to explain his official anstorical Society Papers (as suggested by General Longstreet), for I make a direct issue with him as otations given in my former article from General Longstreet's pen, he clearly lays claim to the entiission have occurred had Colonel Walton kept Longstreet's artillery in the same position it occupiedo do with its signal repulse; and before General Longstreet's version of the battle can pass into hi was no better artillery in the army than in Longstreet's corps. It is a slander on those gallant Fr one-third of their number, to say that General Longstreet's two distant batteries routed them, and[18 more...]
J. B. Walton (search for this): chapter 6.40
r of General Longstreet's, supplemented by one from Colonel J. B. Walton, claiming to be a reply to my article in the Augustunt of the artillery combat of second Manassas from Colonel J. B. Walton, commander of the Washington artillery of New Orleant, James Longstreet. The above letter, including Colonel Walton's, does not at all meet the issue I raised in my artical Longstreet, with his letter, sends a letter from Colonel J. B. Walton, in which he (Colonel W.) labors to prove that he ft from a less advanced position. Moreover, what has Colonel Walton's account of his artillery fight on the 29th of August August, after he had withdrawn from that position? Colonel Walton's letter establishes this fact, viz: that at 3.30 P. Mthe withdrawal of General Longstreet's artillery under Colonel Walton the day before. General Longstreet is in error in sthe matter? Would the same omission have occurred had Colonel Walton kept Longstreet's artillery in the same position it oc
Stonewall Jackson (search for this): chapter 6.40
vance of Longstreet's left, together with General Jackson's infantry, had something to do with the in their desperate and gallant assault on General Jackson's position. General Longstreet, with ere on Longstreet's left, between himself and Jackson, in a commanding position, while the two battw that he not only did great injustice to General Jackson, but to a gallant artillery battalion immassas, to the detriment of General R. E. Lee, Jackson or any command on the field. The Gettysbur, is the following: His forces massed against Jackson, you will readily perceive that a slight advatalion of artillery being between himself and Jackson, and the position and space they occupied wasy position between General Longstreet and General Jackson necessarily placed me nearer the enemy thsite the left of my position, and in front of Jackson, swept across an open field of fourteen hundr that moment Longstreet moved, and one of General Jackson's batteries, which had reported to me, wa[1 more...]
John B. Hood (search for this): chapter 6.40
after he had withdrawn from that position? Colonel Walton's letter establishes this fact, viz: that at 3.30 P. M. on the 29th of August he withdrew all his batteries for repairs and to refill his chests, and he did not return, thereby leaving a gap open of over a quarter of a mile between General Longstreet and General Jackson, and that it was this identical gap which my artillery of eighteen guns filled at dawn on the 30th of August, upon consultation with and at the suggestion of General J. B. Hood. Longstreet did not put me there. General R. E. Lee approved of my position, and ordered me to stay there when I reported it to him — a most fortunate circumstance, as it made an almost continuous line of battle, and filled the ugly gap on the high and advanced ridge made by the withdrawal of General Longstreet's artillery under Colonel Walton the day before. General Longstreet is in error in saying that in my previous article I claim to reply to a part of his official report of
Cakum (search for this): chapter 6.40
ur Papers whenever it may be convenient. I am, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, James Longstreet. The above letter, including Colonel Walton's, does not at all meet the issue I raised in my article in the August number of the Historical Society Papers, but is a clear ignoring and evasion of that issue. The point raised in my article was that my eighteen (18) guns consisting of the batteries of Eubank, Jordan, Parker, Rhett, and a section of Grimes' battery under Lieutenant Cakum (to use the words of General R. E. Lee's official report), posted in a position a little in advance of Longstreet's left, together with General Jackson's infantry, had something to do with the repulse of the enemy on the 30th August, 1862, in their desperate and gallant assault on General Jackson's position. General Longstreet, with his letter, sends a letter from Colonel J. B. Walton, in which he (Colonel W.) labors to prove that he first discovered the ground on which my artillery
1 2 3